Art. 1 of the Law on Israel Boycott stipulates that any natural or legal person is prohibited from concluding, either directly or through an intermediary, an agreement with entities or individuals residing in Israel or acting for its benefit, where the subject matter of such agreement concerns commercial dealings, financial transactions, or any other form of transaction whatsoever. Under Art. 7.I.1.i of the Public Procurement Law, foreign bidders are required to submit a statement issued by the Ministry of Economy and Trade attesting to compliance with the provisions of the Law on Israel Boycott.

According to Art. 16 of the Public Procurement Law, bids offering goods or services of domestic origin may receive a preference margin of 10% over bids involving foreign goods or services.

Lebanon’s tendering processes are reportedly characterised by limited transparency, leading private companies to exercise caution when participating in public procurement. Evidence suggests that public institutions often circumvent regulations intended to guarantee full and open competition by dividing procurement requirements into smaller contracts that remain below agency procurement thresholds. Consequently, Lebanese government entities frequently resort to direct procurement procedures that follow inconsistent rules and often lack formal competitive bidding. While the Public Procurement Management Administration (PPMA) is generally regarded as transparent, risks of corruption persist within the tendering processes and among the ministries responsible for their implementation.

Lebanon is not a party to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA). In fact, the country is not a member of the WTO.

Although an investment framework exists under Law No. 360 of 16 August 2001, complemented by Decrees No. 9311 and No. 9326 of 21 December 2002, it primarily serves to define the mandate of the Investment Development Authority of Lebanon (IDAL) and to provide incentives in priority sectors. It is reported that there are no foreign ownership restrictions in sectors relevant to digital trade. However, Law No. 1 of 1955 on the Israel Boycott prohibits foreign ownership in all sectors by Israeli citizens or companies.
According to Art. 1 of Law No. 1 of 1955, it is prohibited for any natural or legal person to enter into an agreement, either directly or through an intermediary, with entities or individuals residing in Israel, holding Israeli nationality, or acting on behalf of or for the benefit of Israel, when such agreements concern commercial transactions, financial operations, or any other dealings of any kind.

The Lebanese government retains several state-owned monopolies within the telecommunications sector. The state-owned enterprise Ogero owns and operates all fixed-line telecommunications services in Lebanon, while the two mobile and internet service providers, Touch and Alfa, are likewise under state ownership. In 2002, Lebanon enacted Law No. 431 to provide for the privatisation of the telecommunications sector; however, this legislation has yet to be implemented.

Art. 8.1.b of the Patent Law stipulates that, where the patent applicant is neither a Lebanese national nor a resident of Lebanon, such applicant must appoint an agent or proxy domiciled within Lebanese territory. In addition, Art. 8.2.b requires that the application include a stamped envelope containing two copies of the abstract of the invention in Arabic. It is also reported that, in order to secure the official filing date of a patent application in Lebanon, the application must include a power of attorney that has been legalised by the Lebanese Consulate abroad and, in addition, locally legalised by the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Art. 9.a of the Patent Law stipulates that the patent application must be submitted in the Arabic language.

Lebanon is not a party to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

Lebanon maintains a copyright framework under the Law No. 75 of April 1999. The Act does not adopt an open-ended fair use or fair dealing model. Instead, it establishes a closed list of narrowly defined exceptions, which restricts lawful use to specific, enumerated purposes. Arts. 23-34 set out the complete list of exceptions, which include private reproduction for personal purposes; quotation; reproduction for teaching; reprographic reproduction by libraries and archives; among others.

Iraq lacks a comprehensive consumer protection framework applicable to online transactions. Reports indicate that none of the provisions contained in the existing consumer protection law address e‑commerce or regulate consumer transactions conducted through digital platforms.

Iraq has not signed the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts.

Iraq has not adopted national legislation based on or influenced by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Commerce.

Iraq has not adopted national legislation based on or influenced by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Signatures.

Iraq does not implement any de minimis threshold, which is the minimum value of goods below which customs do not charge duties.